It’s interesting that if you mask out any portion of the image (especially that slash-of-aqua tabletop), or crop in from the sides, the whole thing collapses.

What I like best is the color, especially of the vase and background. Of course, June’s right about it seeming less interesting now than it must have once. I’m not saying it’s not worth (in some sense) almost $10 million, but I do believe the same painting would fare quite differently in a different context. It does give one pause.

I always find myself mystified about how I feel when faced with the kind of question you pose.

I can sort of imagine what it would have been like to see this kind of still life in 1910 — utterly astonishing (and perhaps also mystifying, but for different reasons). Nowadays, every painter with a pot of color can approach this — but then, she won’t get millions if $$ for her efforts. But then again, neither did Matisse.

In personal terms — I like the geranium. I particularly am fond of the violet, burgundy pink background against which the green leaves vibrate so nicely. I’m even fond of the silly pot.

But I won’t say it’s exactly realistic. Nor is it exactly not-realistic. It’s quite flat in fact, which might be why I like it. It could easily be hand-dyed fabric with some applique and pass for enthralling in some circles.

What strikes me is that we’ve grown so used to the “tricks” that those old guys taught us that we think nothing of them. And yet they were new and fresh (as we were) at one time.

And Oh, yes, that central leaf now reminds me of a bit of smiley-face-dom — and if that doesn’t ruin the picture for you, nothing will.

Truth be told, I wouldn’t mind having painted this….. And come on, Steve, it’s worth $100 — maybe even $125.

I am enthralled by the red/pink-blue arcing energy in the painting - that aspect of the picture lives in my mind. But I am troubled by position of the central green leaf. But perhaps, that is the ‘genius’ in painting, providing some ‘disruption’ so that a painting is not just a pretty picture? Someone else may be captivated by the green leaf but be troubled by the energy in the background? Psychology of art liking?

The psychology of the liking of art. Fascinating.

I did see the “Arcs in background” but I missed the significance of the “smaller violet horseshoe arc round the lower right leaf” until I covered it up. Interesting about the red in the shadow.

I will try to find the Manet book.

Elijah,

“the strong tilt to the right is the most salient feature!” yes.

My feelings:
Loving geraniums for their high energy (On Corsica, I once saw an entire wall covered with red geraniums), I was at first taken aback by the puny flower here, most of it in greyish pink. Then, seeing the incredible motions expressed by arcs and tilts, I sensed a striving to the light, a coming into its own, a flower bud on its way to blooming.

The “domination of the central leaf” provides ‘grounding’ for the viewer, not to be sucked into the ether. The position of this leaf seems an artistic liberty. In real life, this leaf would also reach towards the source of light. Did the artist paint what he saw and felt and then, using his artistic experience, configured the position of the central leaf to make the composition work ?

Another thing about the composition is how the central leaf dominates, locally, the rest. The composition is actually kind of flat — and the set-up resembles water lilies’ leaves floating, the smaller ones sprouting from the big one in the epicenter.

Though the colors are bright and the green is especially enchanting, they are still subordinate to the composition, I think.

I see this painting for the first time, I love it.

I’m continually bothered by Matisse. Mostly his paintings register as inspired slapdashery with the sum of the wayward facture being positive. There are some paintings that Cezanne did of his son dressed like a clown that hit me in a similar fashion. But they will be the first images that I seek out.

Of course, there is the possibility that you find the picture boring.